Opinion
Column

Crack book spines, not your own

In hopes of expanding historical knowledge I wrote an article describing the early days of New France in Quinte. It was an eye-opening experience not only for the vast amount of information overlooked in local historical narratives, but because of what I learned about the educational approach.

During my research I’d been unable to find anyone who attended local schools and could recall learning of these French pioneers within Quinte. Certainly they knew of Champlain, but not of his foray through local parts, nor did they know of nearby French missionaries or of La Salle’s many visits.

So, to ensure the feedback I received accurately reflected these different generations, I asked a school board if Quinte’s early French presence had formed any part of local history curriculums now, or in the past. Here’s what I learned.

Reviewed by the province every seven years, publicly-funded curriculums grow more dynamic with teachers and students expected to initiate independent research – the emphasis squarely on technology. So if students or teachers didn’t pursue Quinte’s early French history through independent research, and it wasn’t available digitally, it wasn’t imparted.

Those I’d spoken with hadn’t experienced such ‘independent’ research, so the short answer was ‘No,’ this board of education couldn’t contradict interviewees’ recollections.

Then someone made an unbelievable remark; “Books are doorstops.”

Yet, viewing all books as ‘doorstops’ is terribly narrowing when you consider examinations and analysis for this historical article were entirely achieved through hardbound books, personal conversations and ‘snail-mailed’ genealogical records. Yup, that old-fashioned concept called research.

Thus, an exclusively digital focus disconnects us from our past.

Interestingly, a digital copy of the article was requested, and offered, so it has helped expand local knowledge, but the incident stirred deep frustration any educators would ignore local history simply because it isn’t digitized. So much of our community’s past is being lost in technology’s terribly selective ignorance.

The process afforded multiple conversations with those working among archives and who, like I, lament the loss of historical information and primary sources in our demented drive to ensure they’re only accessible with the power on and the money to keep it on. And by insisting on an exclusive electronic focus, technology is burying huge chunks of our past. Sadly, many don’t care.

It isn’t all bad news...

I recently spoke with a 21 year-old who prefers reading books to digital screens, offering hope even younger generations can see the folly of narrowing historical sources and formats, or bending relentlessly forward. Staring endlessly at electronic screens has proven very unhealthy as is constantly being hunched over any communication device. More and more young people are experiencing digitally driven neck and spine problems... and repetitive strains.

Books don’t do that.

Books are more tactile, beautiful, affordable, and even more portable than computers. They’re also environmentally-friendly since they can be passed on endlessly without constantly powering up, and biodegradable too. Sure, books require resources… initially. But that cheap plastic device you’re using? Obsolete in three years… still sucking energy, and each contains hazardous waste.

Perhaps educators will consider a more balanced approach to local historical resources, I don’t know. But I’m doing my part by broadcasting the boundless benefits of ‘genuine’ books in comprehensively chronicling our past.